[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Why has Zeb still not answered the question? If he is against Marijuana due to health. What about alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, caffeine?[/quote]
He can only attack(poorly i might add), he cant debate. He will most likely wait until that issue is buried before posting again or avoid it completely.[/quote]
I guess you were wrong moron.
When you dropped out of school did you make your Mommy cry?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Not quite Sparky, I refuted each of the comments that you took so long to paste. Go on back and take a look again.
If there is one that you don’t think I refuted you need to offer it up as evidence that you are correct.
(I’ll guide you don’t worry)
And if that’s you in the avatar you need to correct your posture. Because when you grow up you don’t want to walk around with slumped shoulders.
People are not as dumb as law makers assume. Whether drugs are legal or not, the number of people abusing them will not change. Most people don’t care if something is illegal. If they want to do it, they will. Look no further than the number of inmates in jails and prisons in America for proof.
The vast majority of people are not mentally weak enough or stupid enough to abuse drugs, especially when they are paying for them. People who have a good health insurance policy through their employer that covers 100% of prescription drug costs, and whose doctor keeps prescribing them drugs to line his/her pockets, are the more likely to abuse drugs than anyone else. There’s something about the fact that it’s FREE that attracts weaker people to drugs.
Of course, government’s definition of abuse is ridiculously low, so they can justify employing people to enforce it. These are the people who define binge drinking as 4 drinks or more in one night.
For the record, alcohol is the only drug I use and I use it sparingly. I’ve never tried any “hard drugs” and I’ve never smoked anything. Even though cigars and such are legal, I’ve just never had the desire to smoke anything. With that said, if you want to abuse heroin and it kills you, who am I to judge? It’s your body, and you should be free to do what you’d like to it.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll
A few interesting links:
[quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote]
[quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote][quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote][quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote][quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote][quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
"I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)"
I never siad anything about personal use, or smoking pot myself.[/quote]
That was saracasm simpleton.
No thats putting word in someones mouth.
[quote]"dk44 wrote:
you’re either for smaller govt, or you’re not. this “drug war” is nothing but more govt in your life.
Yes, it is but it’s so much more than that isn’t it?
THINK"[/quote]
Never put any words in the posters mouth.
Thats avoiding the question. i guess thats shitty reading comprehension on top of avoidance
[quote]Here’s dodging a question
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.
I know at the tender age of 22 your little bag of weed that you keep stuffed in your sock drawer means a lot to you. But you better think twice before you call someone who is your superior in just about every way an “asshole.”
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
(eye roll)[/quote]
I responded by talking about better alternatives to pot use. (Just exactly how dumb are you?)
[quote]Yes, but they are more expensive and therefore inaccessible to people that aren’t as filthy, stinking rich as romonid - and that is the bigger issue.
Pot is a cheap alternative to deal with the side effects of cancer medications…you do know that don’t you…you patronizing SOB.
"Absolute nonsense! I had a friend who had cancer and he was not wealthy yet had the opportunity to take every imaginable cancer drug that there was. He never “needed” or asked for pot.
This is just one more (really lousy) excuse for those who smoke pot to rationalize it’s legalization. Very transparent and not at all necessary.
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
This too was responded to properly and completely!
[quote]The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance…
Au contraire"
Ignoring posts that discount yours
" DoubleDuce wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?"
No one claimed that, the only claim made in this thread is that pot is a good alternative and Romney wants to restrict it.
Need i go on[/quote]
Wow…no don’t go on you are wasting my time and the time of anyone who has engaged this thread for serious conversation. In short you are an idiot. To quickly summarize the poster above claimed that it should be left up to the patient and my response is that we need justification in the form of actual research that determines the best drug that fits the disease. You are making me pine away for the the days when the pro legalization crowds best argument was “it’s a plant maaaaan.”
Yet your responding, am i getting to you old man pointing out your ignorance.
Go away junior you are playing out of your league and it shows.[/quote]
I suppose theres no fool, like an old fool.[/quote]
Or like an uneducated idiot.
(I know you have a difficult time with even the not so subtle comment so to be sure I am referring to you)
[/quote]
Your still ignoring the fact that you ignore posts that counter your opinion and manipulate other peoples words.[/quote]
And you still have not shown one iota of proof that I do that…moron.[/quote]
As a matter of fact i have you just chose to ignore it, thus proving my point.[/quote]
Dont feed the troll[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Why has Zeb still not answered the question? If he is against Marijuana due to health. What about alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, caffeine?[/quote]
Sorry thought I did answer it. There was a lot of fast and furious posting going on.
Anyway, I am personally opposed to the use of those things. While alcohol is good for the heart (some research suggests) it is absolutely bad for the liver. And nothing has to be said about cigarettes that one is obvious. Maybe there’s something inherently bad about sucking smoke into your lungs huh? I rarely touch sugar I’ve been a natural food guy for a long time.
How about you maverick?
[/quote]
That does not answer the questions.
Should be go to jail for it?
[quote]orion wrote:
That does not answer the questions.
Should be go to jail for it?[/quote]
I’ll give you my opinion on that. No. The ban on alcohol should be ignored by friendly flatfeet and local and state government officals who protect the speakeasies, the numbers games and the broads. They get paid off by organised crime, which of course will be controlled by the Italians, Irish and Jews. They in turn will control the unions and the Democratic Party. Any moral crusaders or nosey journalists get made an offer they can’t refuse.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.[/quote]
I disagree with this
AS much as im loath to admit it prescription drugs, are the only real option. Provided you have insurance they are affordable, if you don’t i guess your just sol but, a responsible will have in order not to have to fall back on COBRA and become a burden to the state. The benefits of medicinal marijuana don’t really outweigh the social costs. Anyone can go doctor shopping to acquire medical marijuana, no real disease needed.Just like alcohol, trans fats,sugar, and tobacco consumption is unhealthy, and i think we can all agree that the less used the better. Furthermore crime skyrockets in neighborhoods where dispensaries pop up, mostly targeted at the dispensaries workers.
[quote]Draugr wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
So according to Romney cancer patients should use much more expensive and addictive pain meds or synthetic marijuana which happens to have a shit ton of negative side effects rather than marijuana. How is this asshole the republican nominee.[/quote]
I disagree with this
AS much as im loath to admit it prescription drugs, are the only real option. Provided you have insurance they are affordable, if you don’t i guess your just sol but, a responsible will have in order not to have to fall back on COBRA and become a burden to the state. The benefits of medicinal marijuana don’t really outweigh the social costs. Anyone can go doctor shopping to acquire medical marijuana, no real disease needed.Just like alcohol, trans fats,sugar, and tobacco consumption is unhealthy, and i think we can all agree that the less used the better. Furthermore crime skyrockets in neighborhoods where dispensaries pop up, mostly targeted at the dispensaries workers.[/quote]
Let’s see because of it’s illegality Marijuana is comparably the price of gold . With none of the security features that banks and precious metals dealers .
There would be no social cost to legalize it.
The defense of Medical Marijuana being misused is like saying look at all those people abusing aspirin .Marijuana’s analgesic effect is like aspirin not like morphine
I would have to agree a chronic user could have issues with the smoke and to be honest I have seen some that became paranoid and IMO could develop mental issues . But in my 40 years experience with marijuana those are the only down sides I could see
This is a tough one. I like dk44’s and ZEB’s arguments best, though.
Like dk44, I believe that people should be able to use any drug they wish. People should be able to smoke, drink, eat, inject, or shoot themselves in the face with a pistol. All different forms of self-destruction to various degrees. I’m for small government.
HOWEVER, this utopian libertarian belief can only be implemented when those same people ARE NOT getting paid to be unemployed, disabled, retarded, or otherwise incapacitated as a result of their habits. If a 600lb fat motherfucker goes to the ER without insurance, someone is going to foot that bill until he can pay it (which he probably never will). Wrong answer. If the government is going to promote personal responsibility ONLY THEN do I agree with dk44.
Those people should be left to their own devices with no government help. Here, I agree with ZEB on a multitude of other issues that would require the government to tell people to go fuck themselves when they bitch and moan about their problems.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. [/quote]
Then you must oppose alcohol, tobacco and sugar with the same zeal my friend.
Oh wait, they are legal.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.[/quote]
How is smoking pot immoral? I don’t even understand that argument.
[/quote]
Because it’s illegal…just ask my Mennonite mother.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.[/quote]
How is smoking pot immoral? I don’t even understand that argument.
[/quote]
Because it’s illegal…just ask my Mennonite mother.[/quote]
My mother was the same way , she died from a systemic infection that resulted from the drug Remicade . The drug is used to supress the immune system when some one has an auto immune disorder. But I tried to get my mom to try marijuana first and her response was that is illegal there for immoral.
Most of the drugs they use for disease have many bad side effects and many people die from the different treatments
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Look at the damage sugar does , the cost to America is huge
[/quote]
The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.[/quote]
Then you an argue for the legalization of heroin and other hard drugs, right?[/quote]
No. I’m against you locking people up to prevent them from using them though.[/quote]
Why do you want to punish (in any way) people for consuming something that is unhealthy. It appears you have a(one more) problem with your argument.[/quote]
Uh, I just said I was against punishing them…
The hell are you talking about?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
If you like government controlling people, just say “I like big government, and wish it could get bigger.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.[/quote]
And libs like small government with “good” spending and tax laws.[/quote]
If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?
Illogical.
But then you’ve not brought any logic to this debate from page one.[/quote]
They are for increasing the size of government in regard to national forests.
Increasing the size and sway of the federal government isn’t in favor of larger government.
Illogical.
But you’re showing yourself to be either dumb or a troll in this entire thread.[/quote]
You’ve not had an argument, or a fact, from page one and now you’ve reduced this to name calling. I like it go for it, it actually makes for a good exit for you.
Anyway…
Increasing, or maintaining the size of one government agency does not mean that one is in favor of increasing the size of the total government.
Why does everything have to be explained to you?
[/quote]
I’ve had plenty of simple rational logic in this thread which you have completely ignored. I, and others, have repeatedly asked you incredibly simple, direct yes or no questions. You have repeated completely ignored.
Exactly what the previous poster said. You aren’t for small government, you are just for your brand of big government.